Cookie Control

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Some cookies on this site are essential, and the site won't work as expected without them. These cookies are set when you submit a form, login or interact with the site by doing something that goes beyond clicking on simple links.

We also use some non-essential cookies to anonymously track visitors or enhance your experience of the site. If you're not happy with this, we won't set these cookies but some nice features of the site may be unavailable.

By using our site you accept the terms of our Privacy Policy.

(One cookie will be set to store your preference)
(Ticking this sets a cookie to hide this popup if you then hit close. This will not store any personal information)

EPA Press Office Obfuscation Keeps Complaints Boiling

July 30, 2014

If you want to interview an EPA official about a drinking water pollution catastrophe or a controversy about air pollution from fracking, the press office may do its best to stop you.

Despite rhetoric about an "open" administration, the Obama White House has used press offices at many federal agencies to impose ironclad message control. Without legal justification or written policies, EPA and other agencies have tried to require press office permission for interviews and to interpose "minders" between reporters and agency officials.

Another example popped up in a major Texas fracking pollution story, even as an EPA press official downplayed the problem. The saga was told by Lisa Song of the Pulitzer-winning InsideClimate News and highly respected veteran investigative reporter Jim Morris of the Center for Public Integrity, who were doing a joint project on air pollution from fracking operations in the Eagle Ford Shale formation of South Texas.

"In February, after we published our first stories on the Eagle Ford," Morris and Song wrote, "we began trying to answer that question [of why fracking pollution isn't being controlled] by seeking on-the-record interviews with EPA officials in Washington, D.C., and Texas. Five months later, no such interviews have been granted."

"The EPA's non-responsiveness in the Texas air pollution story is especially troubling because it keeps taxpayers in the dark about the agency's handling of a critical environmental issue," they wrote.

If the prevalence of public affairs puppetmasters is calculated to head off embarrassment for the Obama administration, it may nonetheless end up having the opposite effect. New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan told in a July 28, 2014, post of a public affairs minder prompting then-Senator Rick Santorum during a 2005 interview with Mark Leibovich.

Sullivan calls on journalists to push back against the minders — which in Leibovich's case meant naming and quoting the minder as he told the Senator what to say.

Sullivan offered one more not-so-radical idea: that journalists are the ones who can and should really set the ground rules.

SEJ Publication Types: 
Visibility: